who is braver? the soldier who gets shot and is killed or the soldier who survives by shooting someone?

Question

on the one hand there is the idea of why a soldier goes to war but on the other hand there is the idea that non violent protests are braver as you will no doubt either get shot or get your head kicked in and that takes balls to face someone and be prepared to die without hurting them back. is this pure stupidity? could we have defeated the nazis like this or would their panzers have squashed us into the mud?

Answer 1

The bravest guy is the medic who puts his own life on the the line to try and help the soldier who was shot - it's difficult to keep it together with someone's guts/brains/vital organs all over you, enemy (and sometimes friendly) rounds zipping all around, unable to keep a proper eye out for enemy troops because you're doing everything you can, and then some, to help stop your comrade/mate from dying, and then lugging him back to relative safety to continue patching him up, whilst all the while carrying all your own gear and the medical equipment, trying to keep in some sort of cover / give yourself a field of fire if you have to engage and return fire / suppress the enemy / get out of the way of the incoming air support / artillery and with some of your own guys getting a bit panicky, it can be a bloody dangerous role to have.

Answer 2

Non-violent protest only work against YOUR government, because it's a bad idea for a government to go around shooting their own civilians. If they started doing that they'd have a revolution on their hands. However, there's nothing stopping the invader's government from shooting as many "resisters/insurgents" as they like.

Of course we couldn't have defeated the Nazis through non-violence. Some wars are justified. They would have either shot, sent to concentration camps or ignored protesters.

That is certainly not to say that non-violent protesters are not brave. Standing up to riot police and mounted officers without having a large bit of wood in your hands is a very brave thing to do. It's just that occaisionally there's a time for protest and a time for war.

Answer 3

I'm not a soldier but I would assume the difference between getting shot and not getting relies more on reaction time and luck than bravery. I think you have to be physically brave to put your self in the position of being a soldier. The nazis would not have been beaten by non violent demonstrations you would all have been carted off to death camps like the jews the gypsies the russian pows and anyone else that they thought got in their way.
also if Britain had not held out as long as it did the americans might have come into the war too late and just have stopped the war by having a truce then nobody would have heard about the death camps.

Answer 4

You ask an interesting question. I would say the fellow who shoots the other and lives would be the braver. BUT and it is a big but, this would only be true if he already knew what a living hell it is to have done so. Most people knowing this would never kill another person. [OK in some cases they are inhuman enough, not to care.]

Bravery is taking an action, in the full knowledge of what the consequences will be.

Hence, it would be brave to jump into a freezing river to save a child, knowing that you too could get in trouble and die.

Being hit by a drunk driver and then being run over by a bus is not brave. I is just bl***y bad luck.

Answer 5

Not enough information. The soldier who died could have done something, without thinking, and so suffered the consequences of thoughtlessness. The soldier who survived because he shot someone may have lived because he was able to fire first. The soldier who died may have taken a bullet for a buddy whose wife just had a baby. The soldier who survived may have shot an unarmed person.
Dietrich Bonhoffer stood up against the Nazis, when Hitler was in power, and was sent to a concentration camp.

Answer 6

History is full on non violent protesters who have been run over by tanks or shot with machine guns and in the process have achieved absolutely nothing.

It may be brave, but it does nothing to protect other people or stop the bad people.

The ones I admire are the conscienscious objectors who refuse to carry a gun, but still volunteer to carry a stretcher under fire, or resuce someone from a burning building as they are actually making a difference without compromising their principles, which I respect.

Answer 7

Theres a big difference between bravery and stupidity. The soldiers who go to war know that they may die fighting for others rights. They also know that other soldiers will be taking aggressive action against them. A non-violent protester would be of little effect in a battle situation, other than a diversionary target. A protesters stance indicates "I disagree with what you are doing, and am willing to lay my life on the line for my beliefs." A soldier knows that he is actively fighting for what he believes in to protect it from tyranny and oppresion. They both have their place in the course fo the world.

Answer 8

they are both as brave as each other in the point of putting themselves into a situation in which you either shoot or get shot, to be able to pull the trigger when that moment comes is the real defining point,

being able to hold yourself together whilst under fire and to return a accurate shot is the difficult and brave part of combat, putting your head above the para-pit as they say!

i believe neither is braver it is just courage the soldier has the courage to fight for a cause where as the protester is brave by standing up for his cause but lacks courage in not being willing to fit for it

Ex Royal electrical and mechanical engineer

Answer 9

First of all, I would like to say that anyone in the military who goes to war is a hero. Bravery on the battlefield is a common accurance. The answer to your question is both. Bravery isn't something judged on levels, your either brave or you are not. My dad is a Vietnam Combat Veteran. My Grandfather served in the Korean Conflict. I served in the 3rd Calvary Division. Combat is a kill or be killed scenario. You fight for a purpose, to live on. My father has seen many horrible things in Vietnam, and still to this day it haunts him. Maybe you should go and thank a Veteran instead of asking stupid questions.

Answer 10

Both are brave, Depending on how and why they were shot. That is the difference between getting a "PURPLE HEART" and not getting one. Was the soldier who was shot running away or were they running toward the fight. The soldier who killed...whom did he kill and why? You do not provide enough information to provide a valid opinion.